1. The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P10 order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, [DRT-II] Ernakulam, in I.A.No.1556/2017 in S.A.No.132/2017. The facts in the original petition would indicate that, on being served with a possession notice by the respondent bank, the petitioners approached the Tribunal through the aforementioned S.A. challenging the step taken by the respondent bank. Along with the S.A., the petitioners had filed two interlocutory applications, namely, I.A.Nos.839/2017 and 840/2017. I.A.No.839/2017 was one that was filed seeking a stay of further proceedings pursuant to the possession notice that was impugned in the S.A. I.A.No.840/2017 was one that was preferred seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to report on the nature of the property that was being proceeded against by the respondent bank, with the contention of the petitioners being that the property was essentially agricultural in nature, and, therefore, the bank could not proceed against the said property under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act']. While the pleadings in the said interlocutory applications were being completed, the respondent bank proceeded further in the matter, and approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The said step initiated by the respondent bank culminated in an order passed by the CJM, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the secured asset. This step taken by the respondent bank was impugned by the petitioner through I.A.No.1556/2017 that was filed in the aforementioned S.A. Ext.P10 is the order passed in the said I.A., whereby, the DRT-II granted a conditional stay, against further proceedings pursuant to the Section 14 step taken by the respondent bank, on condition that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.25 lakhs on or before 28.9.2017, and a further sum of Rs.25 lakhs on or before 19.10.2017. The matter is now listed before the Tribunal on 20.10.2017, for reporting compliance, and for hearing I.A.No.480/2017. As already noted, in this Original petition, Ext.P10 order is impugned inter alia on the contention that the Tribunal ought not to have considered the issue of stay of further proceedings, pursuant to the step initiated by the respondent bank under Section 14, without first determining whether the bank had the jurisdiction to proceed against the property of the petitioner, which according to the petitioner, is agricultural in nature.

2. I have heard Sri. K.M. Sathyanatha Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioners as also Sri. Mohan Jacob George, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent bank.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find, at the very outset, that Ext.P10 order is passed in an interlocutory application [I.A.No.1556/2017], which impugns the further step taken by the respondent bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is trite that the further step, after the first step under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was impugned by the petitioners in S.A.No.132/2017, could have been impugned only through a separate Securitisation Application preferred by the petitioners challenging the further step. The Tribunal could not have entertained an Interlocutory application seeking reliefs against a subsequent step, in a Securitisation application that was preferred impugning the earlier step taken by the respondent bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. I find therefore that Ext.P10 order is vitiated on the ground that the Tribunal passed the order in an application that itself was not maintainable before it as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. That apart, I also find that, in the instant case, the petitioners had a definite contention before the DRT, in the S.A. tha